The Western Burrowing Owl Needs A Conservation Plan

“Probably one of the most common birds in California, and know to almost everybody, as they are visible at all times of the day, and not timid.” This was the description of the Burrowing Owl, Athene cunicularia, in the Geological Survey of California, Ornithology, Volume 1, Land Birds, published in 1870. What has happened since then is a sad tale of indifference, neglect and mismanagement.

Burrowing Owls are listed as endangered in Canada and threatened in Mexico. They are considered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to be a “Bird of Conservation Concern” at the national level, in three USFWS regions, and in nine Bird Conservation Regions. They are also listed as endangered in Minnesota, threatened in Colorado, and as a “Species of Special Concern” in California, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.

“Owl numbers have dropped steadily since the 1940s; by the mid-1990s surveys estimated 9,450 owl nesting pairs in the primary range of California burrowing owls, with 5,600 pairs thought to nest in the Imperial Valley. The number of breeding owl colonies in the survey area declined by nearly 60 percent from the 1980s to the early 1990s, and the statewide number of owls is now thought to be continuing to decline by about 8 percent per year due to urban development.1“You can deduce from the map above that it does not look good for the Western Burrowing Owl. The Imperial Valley (represented by the lime green area at the bottom of the map, below the Salton Sea shown in white) was thought to be the last stronghold for this small, charismatic owl. Unfortunately, a recent survey by the Imperial Irrigation District that monitors the largest population of California’s Burrowing Owls, shows a stunning 27% decline, providing some of the most striking evidence yet that the species is badly in need of state protections.So what is causing such huge declines in this “Species of Special Concern?” As is the case with most threatened and endangered species, loss of habitat is a large part of the problem, but the fact that this raptor lives in burrows dug primarily by fossorial mammals, compounds the problem. The California Ground Squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) is the primary species offering up burrows for the owls in California and they have been systematically eradicated in the west for years (badgers, skunks, marmots, armadillos and fox holes are also used by the owls in North America).

The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) is still working from a script developed in 1995 when they released a staff report to aid developers and consultants involved with projects and developments that “may affect burrowing owl habitat.” That was over fifteen years ago! These unwise practices fly in the face of their own suppressed report, Guidance for Burrowing Owl Conservation, dated April 14, 2008, that was leaked by us but never released to the public.

The current CDFG practices allow, and commonly use, exclusion of owls from their burrows during the non-breeding season, supposedly as a method to avoid “take.” The definition of “take” includes to harass, harm, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. A notable component of this definition is the definition of “harm.” “Harm” in the definition of “take” means an act that actually kills or injures protected wildlife. Such acts may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavior patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering2.

The 2008, unreleased report states “exclusion of owls from burrows during the non-breeding season, usually by installation of one-way doors, has been used to avoid take…[but] because owls are dependent on burrows for survival and reproduction, excluding them from nesting, roosting, and satellite burrows on a project site may actually lead to direct or indirect take.”These one-way doors exclude the owls from their burrows, forcing them to move to another location. One wildlife “biologist” hired by a developer told us “they are sure to find happy homes elsewhere.” Yeah, right. They are most likely sure to perish from exposure without a burrow to escape predation.

This is the plan (eviction) most often used by CDFG when dealing with developers that find Burrowing Owls on the property they wish to develop. Most are not even required to contribute to a mitigation bank to offset the destruction of their habitat, as described by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Again, quoting from the Guidance for Burrowing Owl Conservation, “existing practices for excluding owls usually employ only portions of the methods described above (passive relocation or eviction), or employ the methods inadequately, and therefore have a higher likelihood of resulting in take. For example, “passive relocation” efforts typically provide alternative (i.e., artificial) nearby burrows for the owls that will be displaced, but do not confirm before burrow destruction that new burrows are being used. “Eviction” is exclusion from the burrow without providing alternate burrows that the displaced owls can find.”

This approach to Burrowing Owl conservation, considering the statistics I have sited here, obviously doesn’t work. Burrowing Owls have been in decline for sixty years. We need a Burrowing Owl Conservation Plan and we need it now!

Please take the time to watch this video made by Caroline and Jonathan Armer of the Santa Clara Audubon Society, Reversing the Trend. It includes interviews with two wildlife biologists, both experts on Burrowing Owls, Lynne Trulio and Jack Barclay, who was one of the biologists that contributed to the 2008 guidance report. I think you will find the video very inspirational.

I would also appreciate everyone joining our cause to Save Burrowing Owls on facebook. We have also started a petition to urge the California Department of Fish and Game to release a new Burrowing Owl Comprehensive Conservation Strategy which they have been promising for the past seven years. Please go sign the petition at the Burrowing Owl Conservation Network, where I serve as the habitat manager. The ability to sign the petition electronically may be ready by this posting. If not, it will be ready soon. Thank you for your support of this important conservation issue.

Larry Jordan was introduced to birding after moving to northern California where he was overwhelmed by the local wildlife, forcing him to buy his first field guide just to be able to identify all the species visiting his yard. Building birdhouses and putting up feeders brought the avian fauna even closer and he was hooked. Larry wanted to share his passion for birds and conservation and hatched The Birder's Report in September of 2007. His recent focus is on bringing the Western Burrowing Owl back to life in California where he also monitors several bluebird trails. He is a BirdLife Species Champion and contributes to several other conservation efforts, being the webmaster for Wintu Audubon Society and the Director of Strategic Initiatives for the Urban Bird Foundation. He is now co-founder of a movement to create a new revenue stream for our National Wildlife Refuges with a Wildlife Conservation Pass.

Share This Article

FB Comments

17 Comments

Duncan

December 08, 2010 3:37:42 pm

The first place I encountered Burrowing Owls was in California. Interestingly, we had to trap them when I worked on the Farallon Islands because they were migrants that fed on theeven more endangered Ashy Storm-petrel.

Great post Larry..Thanks for all that you do to protect the Owls in California. I hope that something can be done to preserve habitat. It has been sad reading Scotts posts on the Population lost because of development…
I hope a feasible plan is developed soon!

It’s actually quite incredible that a species can be allowed to decline and disappear from counties/regions across California right before our eyes. It’s even more incredible that agencies we have entrusted with protecting our wildlife are failing to develop a conservation strategy when their own scientists and biologists recommend immediate action.

Indeed. I worked on the island between 2003 and 2005 (three summer seasons and intermittent fall and winter visits. They were planning to kill off the mice back then, I guess that hasn’t happened yet. But back then there was only ever one or two on the island. At least they usually were not present on the island during the breeding season.

Do any of the developments insert artificial burrows in the grounds and retain the owls? would that even work? I ask because the places I’ve seen them they’ve been pretty unphased by human presence and I can imagine a number of developments (golf courses, old folks villages, residential developments) where having cute little owls popping up out of the grass would be considered a bonus (or at least a neutral) but where ground squirrels might (sadly) be considered unacceptable.

@Tai amazingly enough, the one place I always go to get my Burrowing Owl fix is on a golf course in Davis California called Wildhorse Golf Club. They have installed artificial burrows in one area on the East side of the course and the owls have flourished. They live side by side with the ground squirrels and according to the course superintendent, the squirrels cause no problem for the golf course, and the golfers love seeing them.

I know there are several other places where the owls live comfortably with humans and ground squirrels in residential developments and we want these types of islands for the owls to be part of developer’s plans, especially when they are building in areas that Burrowing Owls already inhabit. We just need the CDFG and other agencies to make it happen. Like Jack Barclay states in the video, it really shouldn’t be that difficult to help this species survive going into the future.

Hi Larry, I’ve signed the petition and continue to be impressed with the effort you’ve put into protecting these owls. I am following your reports, and will hope for good news following the increasing public demand for protection that you and your colleagues have helped to generate.

@Larry
Thanks for coming back to me on that. One thing I’ve been thinking a lot about recently is how we as conservationist/naturalists/wildlife lovers can make developers aware that wildlife on their site (even endangered wildlife which brings with it restrictions) doesn’t have to be a negative and can add value. The potential in my view for places like wildlife friendly golf courses are massive and things like burrowing owls, gopher tortoises and similar iconic wildlife can be at the forefront of this.

Tai, love that idea. It would be great if developers could be approached with a presentation that demonstrates the wildlife as an attraction rather than a nuisance that must be eliminated. The ultimate challenge would be to quantify and prove that public sentiment is truly pro-wildlife. My own mother could not tolerate a possum in her yard and called the city to have it relocated. I agree, the potential is huge and so is the task. Nothing worth doing is ever easy, right?

I just released one of these guys after he hit our window and fell in the snow. This was near Grant’s Pass, Oregon. A short stay in my hands inside the house woke him up and he was off the minute I took him outside again. He didn’t even bite me once he came to his senses which was greatly appreciated by yours truly. It was a special event and I’m sad to hear that they aren’t doing well in California. Keep up the good work.

Your lucky you can still do some work with Burrowing Owls in California, here in Alberta, Canada we are about to lose our owls (exterpated) because the government and industry would not lift a finger to do anything.

I wanted to make a small but important comment in response to this post. CDFG is an enforcement agency, while the Fish and Game Commission writes the actual rules about which species merit protection. The Fish and Game Commission is stacked with pro-hunting, pro-development individuals (case in point: http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Ethics-complaint-filed-against-cougar-killer-3377666.php). By contrast, many of the CDFG biologists who I’ve worked with care a great deal about this species and are frustrated by weak EIRs (written by local planners with no biological experience) and the lack of regulatory tools to help them protect the species.

“The mission of the Department is to manage California’s diverse fish, wildlife and plant resources, and the habitats upon which they depend, for their ecological values and for their use and enjoyment by the public. The Department has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitats necessary to maintain biologically sustainable populations of those species (Fish and Game Code (FGC) §1802). The Department, as trustee agency pursuant to CEQA (See CEQA Guidelines, §15386), has jurisdiction by law over natural resources, including fish and wildlife, affected by a project, as that term is defined in Section 21065 of the Public Resources Code. The Department exercises this authority by reviewing and commenting on environmental documents and making recommendations to avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential negative impacts to those resources held in trust for the people of California.”

We have been asking CDFG to give us the ability to translocate Burrowing Owls as Wild at Heart has been doing for years in Arizona with the help of the Arizona Game and Fish Department. They refuse. Some have also requested permission to start a captive breeding program, request still unanswered, sitting on someone’s desk at CDFG.

We need help form these agencies to solve this problem and keep these beautiful raptors off the Endangered Species List.